Unpopular Anything Road-Related Opinions

[VTGoose]

Landscape designers hate drivers.

This is evidenced at street intersections and especially in large parking lots (like for a mall) by the placement of trees, shrubs, and other plantings that block the view of oncoming traffic.

[zachary_amaryllis]

Trucks shouldn't use right-side climbing lanes. Instead, more agile vehicles should use such lanes to pass slower vehicles on the right. That way, truck drivers wouldn't have to worry about rude or oblivious motorists interfering with their efforts to merge at the end of the climbing lane. The other way to deal with the merging problem would be for the left, passing lane to be the one that ends, but I'm militantly opposed to forced rightward merges and that won't work if there are two or more mainline lanes.

I came up with this during a several-week period during which that barely-needed climbing lane on southbound I-75 near Kennesaw, GA was on my commute. A good many people were using it that way anyway. Hilariously, on one occasion, everyone was in the mainline lanes except for an Amazon 18-wheeler passing everyone else on the right.

On two-lane upgrades, NCDOT still has a number of climbing lanes that do not end; rather the left lane ends and has to merge back in with the climbing lane.  This allows the climbing lane to be signed with "Keep Right Except to Pass".  But the headache is that the same "rude or oblivious motorists" still aggressively pass at the last minute.

This is closely related to my pet peeve about on-ramps.  It seems like almost anytime that somebody [driving 80MPH in a 65MPH zone] moves left to create a gap for somebody else coming up to the merge point, a string of traffic [driving at 90MPH+++] moves right and takes over.  Since many of these folks are using adaptive cruise control, I've been wondering what would happen if someone actually merged in front of them at 65MPH.  The third car back is gonna smack something.

Colorado is sort of inconsistent about this, where they do the 3-lane uphills. Close to me, on US 287 NB out of Fort Collins, on the first hill, you're 'defaulted' into the right lane, while a passing lane opens up to the left. You can also see an example of this at the bottom of the west side of Rabbit Ears Pass.

287: https://goo.gl/maps/78gjJfCcoCeqZzVP9 
Rabbit Ears: https://goo.gl/maps/6z2i9AFc5mziQnjM9
(Also, fun fact: if someone has to turn at this point, NO one wins. You're either coming off the pass at like 80 and have to stand on 'em, or you're trying to flog it to get speed up for the hill, and have to abort. You can 'sorta' go around, but it's not recommended.


At the top of the hill, where it returns to two lanes, it's the right lane that ends.

But it's not always the case. Some places, like on CO 93, it's an acceleration lane that continues up a hill after a light/intersection. Shortly after the light, ther's a KRETP sign, and everyone that went straight through the light (is supposed to) merge right. Muddy Pass (US 40 @ CO 14) is a good example of this as well.

Muddy Pass: https://goo.gl/maps/Stbw2aYJJ6fMSNtW6

Other places, what was a climbing lane, becomes a turn lane if there's a light/intersection at the top of the hill. See Berthoud Pass for an example.

Berthoud Pass: https://goo.gl/maps/12fk6qLv4tExG22T9
This gets REAL confusing when you can't see the lines because of snow.

[SEWIGuy]

That depends on the park. The ones in Alaska have no gates, no admission, but also no real infrastructure. Then ones like Lassen have virtually no lines dependent on the time of year. (Went there in August and there was just two cars ahead of me).

I'd make the argument some places that are National Parks would have been popular no matter what.  I don't see crowds not going to places like Yosemite in the hypothetical scenario the NPS doesn't exist. 

While undoubtedly there would still be tourists to those areas, I think A LOT of people are attracted to national parks because they are national parks. I think the NPS does a great job preserving the natural beauty of these places, creating hiking trails, roads, campsites, etc.  I think most people view the national parks as high-quality experiences.

[Bickendan]

 
Rabbit Ears: https://goo.gl/maps/6z2i9AFc5mziQnjM9

Six standalone mailboxes and a CBU? At that point, the property owners should just put in a second CBU and replace the six mailboxes since the mail carrier has to dismount anyway for the first.

...unless that CBU is the replacement, then in that case what was wrong with the boxes?

[HighwayStar]

That depends on the park. The ones in Alaska have no gates, no admission, but also no real infrastructure. Then ones like Lassen have virtually no lines dependent on the time of year. (Went there in August and there was just two cars ahead of me).

I'd make the argument some places that are National Parks would have been popular no matter what.  I don't see crowds not going to places like Yosemite in the hypothetical scenario the NPS doesn't exist. 

While undoubtedly there would still be tourists to those areas, I think A LOT of people are attracted to national parks because they are national parks. I think the NPS does a great job preserving the natural beauty of these places, creating hiking trails, roads, campsites, etc.  I think most people view the national parks as high-quality experiences.

Anymore it seems like people view certain national parks more as "status symbols" than anything else. They want to post all over their social media with obnoxious photos of them standing in front of some well known geographic feature and say we went to X for our family vacation. Even if they were functionally just part of an 8 hour rolling traffic jam gate to gate they will tell people how they went to the "wild" of Yellowstone and back it up with a photo of the kids standing in front of the canyon. The "popular" parks these days have become tourist traps that ceased to be fun or enjoyable except in the off season, if the park even still has one. On the other hand, the numerically more numerous "unpopular" parks are almost devoid of people. The last time I was in Yellowstone the road was indistinguishable from rush hour I-95, but I've been to several other NPS facilities (not all are "parks" but lets not sweat that distinction), battlefields and whatnot and hardly anyone was there, even though most were close to major population centers and far more accessible.
Perhaps the truest words of national parks are these that a more poetic man once wrote
They call it paradise
I don't know why
You call someplace paradise
Kiss it goodbye

[Rothman]

Although I think HighwayStar's description is too harsh (obnoxious photos...pfft, people have been sharing vacation photos and slides since the invention of the camera), I do think the NPS should establish visitation quotas.  Been to 272 NPS sites so far myself.

Makes me think of Acadia, where the free portion of the park, including Cadillac Mountain, is overrun and the crowds along the paid portion of the tour road are fewer in number.  Last time I was there, the difference was surprising.

[zachary_amaryllis]

 
Rabbit Ears: https://goo.gl/maps/6z2i9AFc5mziQnjM9

Six standalone mailboxes and a CBU? At that point, the property owners should just put in a second CBU and replace the six mailboxes since the mail carrier has to dismount anyway for the first.

...unless that CBU is the replacement, then in that case what was wrong with the boxes?

Not sure it's related, but Steamboat has had mail carrier problems for a while now.

I *hate* that intersection. Every time I've driven through there, someone has to turn. Really harshes the hill for me. I drive a rather underpowered car (4-cyl
'99 Camry), so when approaching this hill, I tend to have my foot near the floor so as to get all I can before starting up the hill.

[SEWIGuy]

That depends on the park. The ones in Alaska have no gates, no admission, but also no real infrastructure. Then ones like Lassen have virtually no lines dependent on the time of year. (Went there in August and there was just two cars ahead of me).

I'd make the argument some places that are National Parks would have been popular no matter what.  I don't see crowds not going to places like Yosemite in the hypothetical scenario the NPS doesn't exist. 

While undoubtedly there would still be tourists to those areas, I think A LOT of people are attracted to national parks because they are national parks. I think the NPS does a great job preserving the natural beauty of these places, creating hiking trails, roads, campsites, etc.  I think most people view the national parks as high-quality experiences.

Anymore it seems like people view certain national parks more as "status symbols" than anything else. They want to post all over their social media with obnoxious photos of them standing in front of some well known geographic feature and say we went to X for our family vacation. Even if they were functionally just part of an 8 hour rolling traffic jam gate to gate they will tell people how they went to the "wild" of Yellowstone and back it up with a photo of the kids standing in front of the canyon. The "popular" parks these days have become tourist traps that ceased to be fun or enjoyable except in the off season, if the park even still has one. On the other hand, the numerically more numerous "unpopular" parks are almost devoid of people. The last time I was in Yellowstone the road was indistinguishable from rush hour I-95, but I've been to several other NPS facilities (not all are "parks" but lets not sweat that distinction), battlefields and whatnot and hardly anyone was there, even though most were close to major population centers and far more accessible.
Perhaps the truest words of national parks are these that a more poetic man once wrote
They call it paradise
I don't know why
You call someplace paradise
Kiss it goodbye

I have been to plenty of national parks, never posted my visits to social media, and have rarely been inconvenienced by crowds.

You complain about the weirdest stuff.

[formulanone]

Concerning parks and other places, Let People Enjoy Things is my mantra.

Most people's expectations are always by distorted by reality (isn't that why we travel? ...not for experiencing the predictable), people with children can't always pick random off-season vacation times, 95 percent of nuisances are usually caused by 5 percent of the population, the crowds pay the bills, and who are you to judge what gets photographed?

[wanderer2575]

That depends on the park. The ones in Alaska have no gates, no admission, but also no real infrastructure. Then ones like Lassen have virtually no lines dependent on the time of year. (Went there in August and there was just two cars ahead of me).

I'd make the argument some places that are National Parks would have been popular no matter what.  I don't see crowds not going to places like Yosemite in the hypothetical scenario the NPS doesn't exist. 

While undoubtedly there would still be tourists to those areas, I think A LOT of people are attracted to national parks because they are national parks. I think the NPS does a great job preserving the natural beauty of these places, creating hiking trails, roads, campsites, etc.  I think most people view the national parks as high-quality experiences.

Anymore it seems like people view certain national parks more as "status symbols" than anything else. They want to post all over their social media with obnoxious photos of them standing in front of some well known geographic feature and say we went to X for our family vacation. Even if they were functionally just part of an 8 hour rolling traffic jam gate to gate they will tell people how they went to the "wild" of Yellowstone and back it up with a photo of the kids standing in front of the canyon. The "popular" parks these days have become tourist traps that ceased to be fun or enjoyable except in the off season, if the park even still has one. On the other hand, the numerically more numerous "unpopular" parks are almost devoid of people. The last time I was in Yellowstone the road was indistinguishable from rush hour I-95, but I've been to several other NPS facilities (not all are "parks" but lets not sweat that distinction), battlefields and whatnot and hardly anyone was there, even though most were close to major population centers and far more accessible.
Perhaps the truest words of national parks are these that a more poetic man once wrote
They call it paradise
I don't know why
You call someplace paradise
Kiss it goodbye

I have been to plenty of national parks, never posted my visits to social media, and have rarely been inconvenienced by crowds.

You complain about the weirdest stuff.

Depends where you go.  My visits are to less popular park sites during the off-season.  But if you want to drive to the peak of Cadillac Mountain in Acadia NP in the summer, or hike Old Rag Mountain in Shenandoah NP in the fall, you'll be inconvenienced, starting with the reservations.  Yes, you need to make reservations.

I agree with HighwayStar that a lot of people visiting popular national parks do so just to say they were there, whether to make a splash on social media or simply for their own personal satisfaction, but their idea of "roughing it" and becoming one with nature is renting a bedded cabin that has only one electrical outlet or walking from the parking lot to the scenic overlook platform.  I'm not judging it; I'm just making the observation.

[webny99]

Makes me think of Acadia, where the free portion of the park, including Cadillac Mountain, is overrun and the crowds along the paid portion of the tour road are fewer in number.  Last time I was there, the difference was surprising.

Cadillac Mountain was very busy when I visited (in 2021), but it wasn't free. We had to buy tickets well in advance.

[hbelkins]

I agree with HighwayStar that a lot of people visiting popular national parks do so just to say they were there, whether to make a splash on social media or simply for their own personal satisfaction, but their idea of "roughing it" and becoming one with nature is renting a bedded cabin that has only one electrical outlet or walking from the parking lot to the scenic overlook platform.  I'm not judging it; I'm just making the observation.

I'm from an era when social media wasn't around for most of my life. Trust me, the crowds at places like Grand Canyon and Yellowstone and Mt. Rushmore were just as bad in the 1990s as they are now, and no one was posting about their exploits on Facebook or Instagram.

[SEWIGuy]

That depends on the park. The ones in Alaska have no gates, no admission, but also no real infrastructure. Then ones like Lassen have virtually no lines dependent on the time of year. (Went there in August and there was just two cars ahead of me).

I'd make the argument some places that are National Parks would have been popular no matter what.  I don't see crowds not going to places like Yosemite in the hypothetical scenario the NPS doesn't exist. 

While undoubtedly there would still be tourists to those areas, I think A LOT of people are attracted to national parks because they are national parks. I think the NPS does a great job preserving the natural beauty of these places, creating hiking trails, roads, campsites, etc.  I think most people view the national parks as high-quality experiences.

Anymore it seems like people view certain national parks more as "status symbols" than anything else. They want to post all over their social media with obnoxious photos of them standing in front of some well known geographic feature and say we went to X for our family vacation. Even if they were functionally just part of an 8 hour rolling traffic jam gate to gate they will tell people how they went to the "wild" of Yellowstone and back it up with a photo of the kids standing in front of the canyon. The "popular" parks these days have become tourist traps that ceased to be fun or enjoyable except in the off season, if the park even still has one. On the other hand, the numerically more numerous "unpopular" parks are almost devoid of people. The last time I was in Yellowstone the road was indistinguishable from rush hour I-95, but I've been to several other NPS facilities (not all are "parks" but lets not sweat that distinction), battlefields and whatnot and hardly anyone was there, even though most were close to major population centers and far more accessible.
Perhaps the truest words of national parks are these that a more poetic man once wrote
They call it paradise
I don't know why
You call someplace paradise
Kiss it goodbye

I have been to plenty of national parks, never posted my visits to social media, and have rarely been inconvenienced by crowds.

You complain about the weirdest stuff.

Depends where you go.  My visits are to less popular park sites during the off-season.  But if you want to drive to the peak of Cadillac Mountain in Acadia NP in the summer, or hike Old Rag Mountain in Shenandoah NP in the fall, you'll be inconvenienced, starting with the reservations.  Yes, you need to make reservations.

I agree with HighwayStar that a lot of people visiting popular national parks do so just to say they were there, whether to make a splash on social media or simply for their own personal satisfaction, but their idea of "roughing it" and becoming one with nature is renting a bedded cabin that has only one electrical outlet or walking from the parking lot to the scenic overlook platform.  I'm not judging it; I'm just making the observation.

I love the national parks. But there aint no way I am sleeping in something that's more rustic than a hotel. That's OK too. Why wouldn't it be?

[HighwayStar]

I agree with HighwayStar that a lot of people visiting popular national parks do so just to say they were there, whether to make a splash on social media or simply for their own personal satisfaction, but their idea of "roughing it" and becoming one with nature is renting a bedded cabin that has only one electrical outlet or walking from the parking lot to the scenic overlook platform.  I'm not judging it; I'm just making the observation.

I'm from an era when social media wasn't around for most of my life. Trust me, the crowds at places like Grand Canyon and Yellowstone and Mt. Rushmore were just as bad in the 1990s as they are now, and no one was posting about their exploits on Facebook or Instagram.

The data says otherwise. The furthest back records go for Yellowstone are from 1991, but in that year there were under 3 million visits. The average across the last 7 years or so is over 4 million.
That may not sound like much, but it means the parks are now 33% more crowded.
But its worse than that. Not only are more people going, but they are going less and less for the genuine experience of the park and more and more for the purpose of posting about it on the internet. You said it yourself, "no one was posting about their exploits on Facebook or Instagram", they were going for different reasons.

[HighwayStar]

Concerning parks and other places, Let People Enjoy Things is my mantra.

Most people's expectations are always by distorted by reality (isn't that why we travel? ...not for experiencing the predictable), people with children can't always pick random off-season vacation times, 95 percent of nuisances are usually caused by 5 percent of the population, the crowds pay the bills, and who are you to judge what gets photographed?

Crowds create the bills that need to be paid in the first place.
If Yellowstone had no infrastructure there would be no few bills.

[SEWIGuy]

I agree with HighwayStar that a lot of people visiting popular national parks do so just to say they were there, whether to make a splash on social media or simply for their own personal satisfaction, but their idea of "roughing it" and becoming one with nature is renting a bedded cabin that has only one electrical outlet or walking from the parking lot to the scenic overlook platform.  I'm not judging it; I'm just making the observation.

I'm from an era when social media wasn't around for most of my life. Trust me, the crowds at places like Grand Canyon and Yellowstone and Mt. Rushmore were just as bad in the 1990s as they are now, and no one was posting about their exploits on Facebook or Instagram.

The data says otherwise. The furthest back records go for Yellowstone are from 1991, but in that year there were under 3 million visits. The average across the last 7 years or so is over 4 million.
That may not sound like much, but it means the parks are now 33% more crowded.
But its worse than that. Not only are more people going, but they are going less and less for the genuine experience of the park and more and more for the purpose of posting about it on the internet. You said it yourself, "no one was posting about their exploits on Facebook or Instagram", they were going for different reasons.

Unless you have proof of the bolded, its just more of your nonsense.

[kphoger]

they are going less and less for the genuine experience of the park and more and more for the purpose of posting about it on the internet.

Bullshit.  Just because they post about it on social media, that doesn't mean that's the reason they went in the first place.

If my wife and I go out on a date, and she takes a picture of it to post on Facebook, that doesn't mean she only went out with me to post about it on Facebook.

By your reasoning, the only reason my parents took me to national parks when I was a child was so they could put the pictures in a photo album to show guests later on.  Or that the only reason John Cook led expeditions in the Pacific in the 18th Century is so he could write journals about it for people to read 240 years later.

[HighwayStar]

they are going less and less for the genuine experience of the park and more and more for the purpose of posting about it on the internet.

Bullshit.  Just because they post about it on social media, that doesn't mean that's the reason they went in the first place.

If my wife and I go out on a date, and she takes a picture of it to post on Facebook, that doesn't mean she only went out with me to post about it on Facebook.

By your reasoning, the only reason my parents took me to national parks when I was a child was so they could put the pictures in a photo album to show guests later on.  Or that the only reason John Cook led expeditions in the Pacific in the 18th Century is so he could write journals about it for people to read 240 years later.

My point is not that because people take photos they only want them for sharing. It is that I have seen/know plenty of people who will go to a National Park and spend the entire time trying to get a perfect "Instagram" photo while ignoring the park around them.
Hell, there was a Simpsons episode not long back lampooning this behavior, so I know I'm not the only one to observe it.

[SEWIGuy]

they are going less and less for the genuine experience of the park and more and more for the purpose of posting about it on the internet.

Bullshit.  Just because they post about it on social media, that doesn't mean that's the reason they went in the first place.

If my wife and I go out on a date, and she takes a picture of it to post on Facebook, that doesn't mean she only went out with me to post about it on Facebook.

By your reasoning, the only reason my parents took me to national parks when I was a child was so they could put the pictures in a photo album to show guests later on.  Or that the only reason John Cook led expeditions in the Pacific in the 18th Century is so he could write journals about it for people to read 240 years later.

My point is not that because people take photos they only want them for sharing. It is that I have seen/know plenty of people who will go to a National Park and spend the entire time trying to get a perfect "Instagram" photo while ignoring the park around them.

You're lying.

[HighwayStar]

they are going less and less for the genuine experience of the park and more and more for the purpose of posting about it on the internet.

Bullshit.  Just because they post about it on social media, that doesn't mean that's the reason they went in the first place.

If my wife and I go out on a date, and she takes a picture of it to post on Facebook, that doesn't mean she only went out with me to post about it on Facebook.

By your reasoning, the only reason my parents took me to national parks when I was a child was so they could put the pictures in a photo album to show guests later on.  Or that the only reason John Cook led expeditions in the Pacific in the 18th Century is so he could write journals about it for people to read 240 years later.

My point is not that because people take photos they only want them for sharing. It is that I have seen/know plenty of people who will go to a National Park and spend the entire time trying to get a perfect "Instagram" photo while ignoring the park around them.

You're lying.

Ohh I'm not. And trust me, I wish those people didn't exist, but burying my head in the sand won't change that.

[kphoger]

I have seen/know plenty of people who will go to a National Park and spend the entire time trying to get a perfect "Instagram" photo while ignoring the park around them.

They've told you this?  Or you accompanied them?  How do you know?

And, call me skeptical, but how many of these people do you know?  I'm curious to see you quantify "plenty of people".

I'm not doubting there are people who do this.  But I doubt they represent anything but a small minority of visitors.  During my last several visits to national parks, I can't recall seeing anyone who fits your caricature.  Perhaps the closest thing would be a couple of young ladies who travel the country in their outfitted vehicle and post about their travels online;  even there, though, they stayed the night in the campground, and I believe they did at least some hiking.  Everyone else I've encountered has been there to hike, to relax, to get away with friends or coworkers for the weekend, to enjoy the scenery–you know, exactly the same reasons as thirty years ago.

Hell, there was a Simpsons episode not long back lampooning this behavior, so I know I'm not the only one to observe it.

Exactly, it's lampooning.  It's an exaggeration.  It's taking a small nugget of truth on the periphery of reality and blowing it out of proportion for comedic effect.

[HighwayStar]

I have seen/know plenty of people who will go to a National Park and spend the entire time trying to get a perfect "Instagram" photo while ignoring the park around them.

They've told you this?  Or you accompanied them?  How do you know?

And, call me skeptical, but how many of these people do you know?  I'm curious to see you quantify "plenty of people".

I'm not doubting there are people who do this.  But I doubt they represent anything but a small minority of visitors.  During my last several visits to national parks, I can't recall seeing anyone who fits your caricature.  Perhaps the closest thing would be a couple of young ladies who travel the country in their outfitted vehicle and post about their travels online;  even there, though, they stayed the night in the campground, and I believe they did at least some hiking.  Everyone else I've encountered has been there to hike, to relax, to get away with friends or coworkers for the weekend, to enjoy the scenery–you know, exactly the same reasons as thirty years ago.

Hell, there was a Simpsons episode not long back lampooning this behavior, so I know I'm not the only one to observe it.

Exactly, it's lampooning.  It's an exaggeration.  It's taking a small nugget of truth on the periphery of reality and blowing it out of proportion for comedic effect.

Mixture of both. People I have traveled with, sometimes just talked to. And often you can tell by their trip photos. Someone goes to what is supposedly a great natural wonder, and they are in every photo, often blocking half of the thing out of view. Its clear its about them not the place.

Lampooning is not inherently a small nugget of truth, sometimes its the opposite, a broad social phenomenon that is portrayed satirically to mock it, even though most people consider it a normal part of life (at least in that place and time). Plenty of well known works in this category as well.

[SEWIGuy]

they are going less and less for the genuine experience of the park and more and more for the purpose of posting about it on the internet.

Bullshit.  Just because they post about it on social media, that doesn't mean that's the reason they went in the first place.

If my wife and I go out on a date, and she takes a picture of it to post on Facebook, that doesn't mean she only went out with me to post about it on Facebook.

By your reasoning, the only reason my parents took me to national parks when I was a child was so they could put the pictures in a photo album to show guests later on.  Or that the only reason John Cook led expeditions in the Pacific in the 18th Century is so he could write journals about it for people to read 240 years later.

My point is not that because people take photos they only want them for sharing. It is that I have seen/know plenty of people who will go to a National Park and spend the entire time trying to get a perfect "Instagram" photo while ignoring the park around them.

You're lying.

Ohh I'm not. And trust me, I wish those people didn't exist, but burying my head in the sand won't change that.

Yeah you are.

[kphoger]

And often you can tell by their trip photos. Someone goes to what is supposedly a great natural wonder, and they are in every photo, often blocking half of the thing out of view. Its clear its about them not the place.

Bullshit.  Taking a picture of my family with the natural wonder in the background doesn't mean I only went there to take a picture.  I visit the place in order to see the beauty;  I take a picture while I'm there in order to document and remember the visit.

People I have traveled with, sometimes just talked to.

So, of the people you've talked to, they actually told you the only reason they went was to post pictures on social media?

It sounds to me like you just don't like people who take a lot of pictures.  Or people who frame their pictures differently than you would.

And, call me skeptical, but how many of these people do you know?  I'm curious to see you quantify "plenty of people".

Again, please quantify.

How many people have you accompanied to a national park, who did nothing except take pictures and then leave?  Not a moment spent taking in the beauty without snapping pictures?  Arrive, take pictures, leave as fast as possible?  How many?

How many people have you talked to, who said the only reason they visited a national park was to post pictures online?  How many?

How many people's pictures have you seen, and you could magically tell how much of their time was spent taking pictures and how much time was spent enjoying the beauty away from the camera's viewfinder?  How many?

[kphoger]

Another take:

Taking selfies of every single activity of a person's life and posting it online is... well... how the younger generation lives.  It's just what they do.  So yeah, now they're taking selfies while they're at a national park and posting them on social media.  Every time they take a break on the trail, out come the camera phones.  Every step of the way setting up their tent, out come the camera phones.  You're lucky they don't post pictures of their used toilet paper.  But, you know what?  That just means they're choosing to do that in an area of great natural beauty instead of at Starbucks or in each other's basements.  Why?  Because they want to be surrounded by the beauty.  They want to see the place.  They want to experience the place.  And that, my fellow middle-ager, is the way they see and experience the world.  Just get used to it.